Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Dna And Due Process, Brandon L. Garrett
Dna And Due Process, Brandon L. Garrett
Fordham Law Review
The U.S. Supreme Court in District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne confronted novel and complex constitutional questions regarding the postconviction protections offered to potentially innocent convicts. Two decades after DNA testing exonerated the first inmate in the United States, the Court heard its first claim by a convict seeking DNA testing that could prove innocence. I argue that, contrary to early accounts, the Court did not reject a constitutional right to postconviction DNA testing. Despite language suggesting the Court would not “constitutionalize the issue” by announcing an unqualified freestanding right, Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion proceeded to carefully fashion an important, …
The Right Remedy For The Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanction For Destruction Of Dna Evidence, Cynthia E. Jones
The Right Remedy For The Wrongly Convicted: Judicial Sanction For Destruction Of Dna Evidence, Cynthia E. Jones
Fordham Law Review
Many state innocence protection statutes give courts the power to impose appropriate sanctions when biological evidence needed for postconviction DNA testing is wrongly destroyed by the government. Constitutional claims based on wrongful evidence destruction are governed by the virtually insurmountable “bad faith” standard articulated in Arizona v. Youngblood. The wrongful destruction of DNA evidence in contravention of state innocence protection laws, however, should be governed by the standards used to adjudicate other “access to evidence” violations in criminal cases, including disclosures mandated by the rules of criminal procedure, the Jencks Act, and Brady v. Maryland. Under the “access to evidence” …
Assessing Fourth Amendment Challenges To Dna Extraction Statutes After Samson V. California, Charles J. Nerko
Assessing Fourth Amendment Challenges To Dna Extraction Statutes After Samson V. California, Charles J. Nerko
Fordham Law Review
DNA plays an indespensable role in modern law enforcement, and courts uniformly find that DNA extraction statutes targeting criminals satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Courts differ on which Fourth Amendment test--totality of the circumstances or special needs--ought to be employed in this context. This Note concludes the courts should apply Samson v. California's less stringent totality of the circumstances test to analyze DNA extraction statutes in order to maintain the integrity of the special needs test.
Prosecutors, Ethics, And Expert Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli, Kevin C. Mcmunigal
Prosecutors, Ethics, And Expert Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli, Kevin C. Mcmunigal
Fordham Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Admission Of Dna Evidence In State And Federal Courts, George Bundy Smith, Janet A. Gordon
The Admission Of Dna Evidence In State And Federal Courts, George Bundy Smith, Janet A. Gordon
Fordham Law Review
No abstract provided.